An honest question to those on the left.

reply to post by nwtrucker

Dear nwtrucker,

Thanks for your very kind words. But may I say I'm even more impressed with the depth of your questions? They're important, but frequently ignored.

To answer your question, I must admit that I have only my impression of our president's character, and his administration's actions as a guide. I believe that Obama has certain goals in mind which will change the nature of the country and the rights of individuals and states. He is so focused on accomplishing those goals in the limited time available to him that he will violate any tradition, understanding, or even law, to reach those goals.

Obamacare, euphemistically known as the Affordable Care Act, was an attempt to establish government controlled health care. In order to get support from powerful people, he granted waivers to California, the Unions, and other groups. Now that it's displaying problems, he's granting delays in implementation, even though the law says "Such and such shall happen no later than a certain date." He violates the law to keep his goal alive.

He's like a general in war time who will destroy everything, break every rule, in order to win. Wasn't the quote something like "We had to destroy the village in order to save it?" Obama believes he has to destroy the country (at least how it was created) in order to save it.

I do get wordy, don't I? Sorry about that. I hope I came close to answering your question.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Sounds like the Captain America: The Winter Soldier commercial.

"To build a better world, sometimes means tearing the old one down."

For the uninformed, CA:TWS has borrowed an element from the real world in the form of the controversial use of drones on American soil, representing the government's willingness to cross lines for the very reason it drew them in the first place. More to the point, it begs the question - what was the reason? Do we even know?

Sometimes you have to take a real close look at your dreams, and wonder if they possess the potential to destroy themselves in an infernal metamorphosis to something you never thought you'd do or be.

God have mercy upon you Americans.

I knew you were very divided, but i never knew you were this divided, as divided as I now know you are.

Now, division is no recipe for destruction, in this world.

But to have such a great blessing, yet such a great appetite for destruction. This is a great sin.

God have mercy upon you Americans.

Subnatural
God have mercy upon you Americans.

I knew you were very divided, but i never knew you were this divided, as divided as I now know you are.

Now, division is no recipe for destruction, in this world.

But to have such a great blessing, yet such a great appetite for destruction. This is a great sin.

God have mercy upon you Americans.

And what great utopia do you have the pleasure of hailing from? Cast not stones if thy house be made of glass.

reply to post by charles1952


Your are too kind. LOL.

You have got my wheels turning though...let me add to your analogy of the general at war.

To keep his colonels and the ground troops in line he gives them carte blanche to carry out their individual hobby horses.

EPA/greens/anti-oil crowd, gun control activists, immigration, minimum wage, the support of a reduced work week and thus save corporate support by allowing them to dodge Obamacare, Military reductions, Iraq and Afghanistan, apparent pro-Islamic moves, the Justice Dept., without who's support all is for naught?

Is that, perhaps, how he is retaining an almost lock-step support within his party?

Also, an explanation for the responses to this thread? Hmmm....

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Close, I was thinking of Viet Nam, and Lt. William Calley.

AfterInfinity

Subnatural
God have mercy upon you Americans.

I knew you were very divided, but i never knew you were this divided, as divided as I now know you are.

Now, division is no recipe for destruction, in this world.

But to have such a great blessing, yet such a great appetite for destruction. This is a great sin.

God have mercy upon you Americans.

And what great utopia do you have the pleasure of hailing from? Cast not stones if thy house be made of glass.

edit on 11-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I have the pleasure to hail from Finland, and perhaps, now that i think of it, while it is quite a pleasant land, it might be made of glass...

Indeed, it is hard to troll, being as i am, an honest man.

beezzer

Gryphon66

beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I didn't say left or right.

Progressives have infected both political parties and are basically indistinguishable from one another. Regardless of the letter after their name.

Can you provide a quick, one or two sentence, definition of what you mean by "progressive"?

Nanny-state.
Big government.
Disregarding the Constitution.

So ... it's a tautology then: "What do Progressives do? They favor the nanny-state, big government and disregarding the Constitution. Who are the Progressives? Those that favor the nanny-state, etc."

Funny the only folks I can find who call themselves "Progressives" are here.

In fact, these folks seem to be in favor of restoring the rights of citizens under the Constitution:

Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

» To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.

» To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.

» To extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.

» To fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.

» To ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.

» To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.

So, who are these other "Progressives" you're talking about? These folks don't seem to fit the bill, so to speak, at least in terms of Disregarding the Constitution.

Trucker, it's fairly obvious from your question that you want "someone on the left" to say: "Hey, you're right, Obama is a Tyrant, and Weee Like it That Way." You're just not going to get that, because it's not true.

It's just not that easy. Particularly for most of us here at ATS who don't really buy into the whole right/left ideology.

I don't like the actions of President Obama, I think, regardless of the Congress, he is ineffective and inspires no confidence as a leader, but to me, his Administrations have been the least insulting to the American intelligence that we've had in some time. He's tried to do much of what he said he'd do, and if he were in fact the Dictator/Tyrant/Evil Emperor that he is made out to be, there'd be throngs of folks being drug out and shot in the street.

You want to claim that the Executive Orders have contravened the Congress. How? Which ones? All of them? You said you're not that familiar with the actual text of the Constitution, so, respectfully, how do you know if Obama's actions are "unconstitutional"?

From the rhetoric I'm guessing you get a lot of your information from the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter/Shawn Hannity/Glenn Beck side of the media spectrum ... yes?

I think that may be a part of your problem, if you want to see a more "balanced" view and at least approach truth.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Sorry, but no, that isn't what I was "looking for". It sounds like either you haven't read all the posts or responses by me.

I have a limited understanding of the Constitution and it's workings. I have posted here that it is my believe, and being courteous, I will repeat it.

It is my understanding that the Constitution doesn't allow for a President to contravene/change law by means of an E.O.. In effect bypassing the Legislative Branch to achieve his own purposes

From what I've read, yes listened to from some of the above sources, is that there have been sixteen E.O.s by Obama that delays, changes, gives exemptions to the A.C.A.that aren't written into the bill.

That is my view. My question, based on apparently those on the left don't feel that way, or, at least, aren't voicing any such concerns.

That is why I started this thread. To see if any on the "left" had reservations about it or supported it outright.

So I will ask you again, any reservations on Obama taking this course or do you support him on it?

reply to post by nwtrucker


Fair enough. Did you go find any of these "EOs" and read them online? The Constitution really isn't that long, and it's readily available online. Read that too. Then you'll know ... and Knowledge is Power!!!

You've had multiple answers from all "sides" and yet, you still say you're not getting the answer to your initial question. I let you know that the question you are asking is "loaded" because if someone doesn't believe that the Executive Orders are unConstitutional they can't answer your question with a simple "yes or no." That didn't satisfy either, as your response was merely "I don't think the question is loaded."

Go read the Executive Orders for yourself. As far as the EOS dealing with the ACA, the Executive is responsible for enforcing the law. ACA is a law. The Executive has to use judiciousness in the ways and means of implementation of laws passed by the Legislative. That's it's job.

ADDED IN EDIT: I don't qualify as being "on the left." Since that's the only response you're looking for, ignore me and I'll bow out here.

reply to post by Gryphon66

A skillful non-answer.

Let me try again, Based on your knowledge of the E.O.s in question and the Constitution, Are the E.O.s in question constitutional?

reply to post by nwtrucker


Hey, I've spent a good amount of time as an armchair leftist, though nowadays I think the whole right left paradigm is a waste of time, and to get anything done we need to break out of it.

I'll tell you that your average progressive/leftist on the street believes that government should be the voice of the people, and should be able to act on behalf of the people. This includes things like assistance for poor, safety net, regulating businesses that are doing bad things, etc. Unfortunately though, government is less and less the voice of the people, and more and more controlled by special interests. This includes wealthy corporations, and very rich people, exercising a lot of control. Within this context, the idea of large government takes on a new meaning, as it can become an instrument to ensure a profit stream for corporations, through law. This idea isn't in line with the left (they believe Govt. can be big, but controlled by the people) and the right (businesses should make it or fail on their own, not pass laws to ensure profit)

The whole right left dance seems to lead us in this direction more are more. Conservatives can think of Citizens United as a win, but when their business competition is using control of the government for the competitive edge, they will see that this isn't the free market they were after. Liberals can think of a new government expansion as a win, but when they see the funding going to corporations instead of the people, they will realize too.

The bottom line is that the current political paradigm is just stuck, its broken. We really all need to step out of it. I'll gripe about about the Democratic scene with you, if you'll gripe about the Republican scene. But I'm not willing to reject one side of the broken mess and accept the other.

nwtrucker
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

A skillful non-answer.

Let me try again, Based on your knowledge of the E.O.s in question and the Constitution, Are the E.O.s in question constitutional?

Which EOs? Go get the numbers of the ones you want answers on at least. You're asking a specific question now, provide the specifics. Use this link: Obama Executive Orders 2013

Generally speaking, an EO is Constitutional until it's struck down by the Judiciary.

Again, I'm not an "Obama supporter" nor a "left winger" though ...

What I find 'funny'

Is people completely ignoring the first 2 years of OBama's term he had a rubber stamp congress.

So any EO number is meaningless.

OF course everyone pales in to comparison of the dictator named Roosevelt and the second runner up Wilson

Besides Obama still has 3 years to go.

What party was Roosevelt and Wilson from ?

Anyone ?

I am laughing my butt off at those who think the 'right' is more 'fascist' than the left.

Most EO's have come from the left.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I don't know the progressives you talk about. The ones that concern me are the ones that rewrite, reinterpret the constitution and look to ways that remove fresoms from the American people
.

nwtrucker
apparently 80% of wood burning stoves are banned nation wide as of Jan.3 and fireplaces are the next target for banning?

wth?! Are the yreally planning that? Happy i dont live in US, it's truly an idiocracy.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I am NOT getting into the sinkhole of sorting out his E.O.s. You know perfectly well the ones I refer to.

I can assure you I won't be speeding in your county...LOL. Not that I have to read the local law books to comply to the posted limits...

Is what your saying/implying is that any E.O. is in some degree a bypass of the Legislative branch, in as much as, usually an E.O. addresses some point not already covered by law?

You also, said, "generally speaking". An obvious qualifier. Is there precedence where E.O.s are not automatically "constitutional"? If not, then Obama's actions look even scarier than I first realized!!

reply to post by beezzer


And I don't know the ones you're talking about; that's why I asked.

I provided a link to the Progressive Caucus in the Congress, which were the only ones I could find after reading your statement. Do you need it again? Progressives in Congress

nwtrucker
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

I am NOT getting into the sinkhole of sorting out his E.O.s. You know perfectly well the ones I refer to.

I can assure you I won't be speeding in your county...LOL. Not that I have to read the local law books to comply to the posted limits...

Is what your saying/implying is that any E.O. is in some degree a bypass of the Legislative branch, in as much as, usually an E.O. addresses some point not already covered by law?

You also, said, "generally speaking". An obvious qualifier. Is there precedence where E.O.s are not automatically "constitutional"? If not, then Obama's actions look even scarier than I first realized!!

In 2013 there are only 20. Just go look at those on the link I posted for you. If I knew the ones you were referring to, why would I ask you for more information? And further, why can't you just tell me what you're talking about instead of saying "you know, the ones that are unconstitutional."

Click the link, read those 20 brief descriptions, and tell me which ones YOU think are Unconstitutional.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the speeding reference.

Is what your saying/implying is that any E.O. is in some degree a bypass of the Legislative branch, in as much as, usually an E.O. addresses some point not already covered by law?

No, in fact, I said the opposite. If you're having a nice conversation, don't put words in the mouth of the person you're talking to.

Generally speaking, i.e. not specifically. There's a difference. Here's what I think: Fox or Beck or someone of that nature has said that Obama has a bunch of unconstitutional Executive Orders and apparently you just believed that; you've proven you're not willing to go do even a modicum of reading yourself, and then you ask us to answer your loaded question "YES OR NO, YES OR NO."

You're just passive-aggressively trying to make a statement. Why not drop the coy act and get to it?